“The NRL can learn from the NFL and NHL”

[TIWIT]

44 minutes ago, bbfaz said:

The NFL and professional sports in general in the US represent a much smaller percentage of GDP than professional sport in pretty much any developed country in the world.  They are massively overcompensated for TV coverage.   If you want to expand the game, you need to open it and expand semi-professionalism.  Create a genuine capitalist sporting society, not close it like the National Football League's crony capitalist model.  Take autonomous, independent, professional Rugby League to every town that wants it and can support it.

RFL in general and Super League in particular would LOVE to be over-compensated.

As for the rest of your post, isn't that essentially what RL has been doing for the past 125 years and simply no longer works?

[aj1908]

4 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

It’s really not as simplistic as that though, is it? It’s not about taking things from other sports for the same reasons they’re used in those respective sports, it’s about how you can improve your product for the viewing public, the TV audiences and broadcasters. 

Well they got golden point from the NFL

Guess because the sports are very similar they can copy some ideas 

[CrushersForever]

11 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

That's all we need , bloody yanks interfering in our sports 

Quarters next ?

Then nickels and dimes.

[manu266]

14 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

That's all we need , bloody yanks interfering in our sports 

Quarters next ?

One forward pass allowed after tackle 5.

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, manu266 said:

One forward pass allowed after tackle 5.

Already happens at Headingley most weeks

[Sports Prophet]

I am very strangely warming to the idea of groups in the NRL. Never thought I would say it.

I think it strengthens the opportunity and nursery for fierce rivalries.

It would add validity to a wild card week, pre qualifying finals.

 

[aj1908]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

I am very strangely warming to the idea of groups in the NRL. Never thought I would say it.

I think it strengthens the opportunity and nursery for fierce rivalries.

It would add validity to a wild card week, pre qualifying finals.

 

22 team nrl

Two conferences

Sydney nswrl

Rest arl

Play your conference home.and away 

Top.five finals system.in each

Nswrl gf at homebush 

Arl gf at Suncorp 

Super bowl for the winner rotating around Australia and nz.

[Sports Prophet]

32 minutes ago, aj1908 said:

22 team nrl

Two conferences

Sydney nswrl

Rest arl

Play your conference home.and away 

Top.five finals system.in each

Nswrl gf at homebush 

Arl gf at Suncorp 

Super bowl for the winner rotating around Australia and nz.

In theory not bad. Alternatively, groups of 4/5/6. Splitting between NSW and the rest could present issues when NSW clubs fold or the NRL looks to add new clubs.

Would it still be a full home and away against all clubs, or just those in your conference?

I think conferencing would mean the NRL would be more liable for existing NSW clubs to survive, which is not what the NRL wants to be guaranteeing.

[aj1908]

5 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

In theory not bad. Alternatively, groups of 4/5/6. Splitting between NSW and the rest could present issues when NSW clubs fold or the NRL looks to add new clubs.

Would it still be a full home and away against all clubs, or just those in your conference?

I think conferencing would mean the NRL would be more liable for existing NSW clubs to survive, which is not what the NRL wants to be guaranteeing.

Only in your conference 

And I've always liked the top 5 finals system 

And.beisbane gets a grand final too

Vlandys has said no sydbey club will relocate 

A big priority.will.be getting brrokvale fixed 

[The Great Dane]

3 hours ago, aj1908 said:

22 team nrl

Two conferences

Sydney nswrl

Rest arl

Play your conference home.and away 

Top.five finals system.in each

Nswrl gf at homebush 

Arl gf at Suncorp 

Super bowl for the winner rotating around Australia and nz.

What a great way to make sure that a Sydney team makes the grand final each year, and completely screw the competition in the process.

The weight of travel would be completely lopsided, which would massively disadvantage the teams that aren't in the Sydney conference. It'd also cut half of the teams off from regularly competing with their biggest rivals/drawing opposition, which is just bad for business, and as mentioned before it'd make it impossible for there to be a grand final that doesn't feature a Sydney club, which would just further reinforce the NRL's problems with it's Sydney centric nature. 

Unless you are willing to compromise the integrity of the competition by severely advantaging certain conferences over the others, conferences simply are feasible in the NRL until there is a relatively even geographical spread of teams in the competition, and that isn't going to happen for a really long time.

3 hours ago, aj1908 said:

And.beisbane gets a grand final too

No they wouldn't, they'd get a conference final. In your system the "Super bowl" would be the grand final.

Also why just give it to Brisbane when you could have the right to host the conference final for sale as well? I'm certain that places other than just Brisbane would be interested in bidding for the right to host such an event.

3 hours ago, aj1908 said:

A big priority.will.be getting brrokvale fixed 

There's no way in hell that the NSW government is going to spend another billion dollars upgrading a bunch of the suburban grounds for the sport after having just spent billions on rebuilding the centralised stadiums.

What should be a priority is pushing as many of the clubs as possible to play out of the modern centralised stadiums, and leaving as many of the suburban ######s to the history books as possible. 

Canberra sports fans would each sell a kidney to have a stadium half as good as Bankwest (not that I'm suggesting that Manly in particular should play games in WS), and you guys are whinging about it because it's not a crappy little oval with a stand that's about to fall down on top of you. It's crazy.

[fighting irish]

what's up with brookvale?

 

[aj1908]

34 minutes ago, The Great Dane said:

What a great way to make sure that a Sydney team makes the grand final each year, and completely screw the competition in the process.

The weight of travel would be completely lopsided, which would massively disadvantage the teams that aren't in the Sydney conference. It'd also cut half of the teams off from regularly competing with their biggest rivals/drawing opposition, which is just bad for business, and as mentioned before it'd make it impossible for there to be a grand final that doesn't feature a Sydney club, which would just further reinforce the NRL's problems with it's Sydney centric nature. 

Unless you are willing to compromise the integrity of the competition by severely advantaging certain conferences over the others, conferences simply are feasible in the NRL until there is a relatively even geographical spread of teams in the competition, and that isn't going to happen for a really long time.

No they wouldn't, they'd get a conference final. In your system the "Super bowl" would be the grand final.

Also why just give it to Brisbane when you could have the right to host the conference final for sale as well? I'm certain that places other than just Brisbane would be interested in bidding for the right to host such an event.

There's no way in hell that the NSW government is going to spend another billion dollars upgrading a bunch of the suburban grounds for the sport after having just spent billions on rebuilding the centralised stadiums.

What should be a priority is pushing as many of the clubs as possible to play out of the modern centralised stadiums, and leaving as many of the suburban ######s to the history books as possible. 

Canberra sports fans would each sell a kidney to have a stadium half as good as Bankwest (not that I'm suggesting that Manly in particular should play games in WS), and you guys are whinging about it because it's not a crappy little oval with a stand that's about to fall down on top of you. It's crazy.

yes the nsw government is making noises about spending more on suburban grounds.  its because our politicians realise league is important unlike the muppet in charge at canberra who is an afl stooge.  brookvale is already getting 30 million for a COE which includes a small new grand stand at one end.  Vlandys has said this is a priority for him.

your chief minister has been to bankwest with a view to copying this in canberra.  so if he stopped going to AFL games and pulled the finger out, hed do whats best for the two football codes that are actually from cenberra

i mean this idiot pays 3 million pa ? for a sydney based AFL team to take games there.    

the ground rebuilds arent just for league.  its for 3 sports.  indeed the government ignored what the ARLC wanted to give their mates at the SCG trust an 800 million stadium that will be 2/3 empty all the time

its not practical for cronulla, the dragons, manly or penrith to play at central stadiums.  its not melbourne where travel is easy.  league is built on clubs that represent their area.  lucky we still have some left.

i think you need to chill with your sydney phobia lol.

brisbane has always wanted a grand final, ever since super league.  this kind of gives them one.

vlandys :

https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=709

 

"Still, V’landys has been deep in discussions with members of government to ensure the upgrade of grounds like Leichhardt Oval, Brookvale and Campbelltown Stadium.

“There’s been no resistance from government,” V’landys.

“There are buckets of money"

[aj1908]

4 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

what's up with brookvale?

 

its a dump lol

heres the proposal to redo one grand stand

https://turfmate.com.au/a-look-at-the-brookvale-oval-upgrade-plans/

 

with parramattas new ground it really shows how far behind brookvale is

[Sports Prophet]

@The Great Dane, whilst a two conference system will assure either a Sydney or NSW team to appear in the GF (depending on the size of the comp), it will also assure a spot for a non Sydney/NSW & ACT club. Essentially every club has a one in 8 chance of making a GF rather than a 1 in 16 or even greater in an expanded comp. 

In my opinion, that’s another great opportunity for the sport to deliver greater rivalries.

Sydney clubs are vital to the growth of the sport in Sydney and NSW. Expanding the comp and keeping the existing Sydney clubs does not have to be exclusive of each other.

[The Great Dane]

11 hours ago, aj1908 said:

yes the nsw government is making noises about spending more on suburban grounds.  its because our politicians realise league is important unlike the muppet in charge at canberra who is an afl stooge.  brookvale is already getting 30 million for a COE which includes a small new grand stand at one end.  Vlandys has said this is a priority for him.

No V'landys is making noises about spending more money on suburban grounds and then asserting that the state government is interested.

Any money that he does actually get will only be enough to make token changes at best, and not enough to fix any of the major issues that the suburban grounds have, which is exactly what is happening at Brookvale. It's lipstick on a pig stuff.

11 hours ago, aj1908 said:

the ground rebuilds arent just for league.  its for 3 sports.

Upgrading the Suburban grounds wouldn't be for the 3 rectangular codes, it'd only be for league, so you don't even have that argument in your favour.

11 hours ago, aj1908 said:

its not practical for cronulla, the dragons, manly or penrith to play at central stadiums.  its not melbourne where travel is easy.  league is built on clubs that represent their area.  lucky we still have some left.

People have said that about every club that has moved to the central stadiums, and yet every club that has moved have higher average attendance at the central stadiums then they have at their "spiritual home". . . It's almost as if you play in a central part of the city and it's easier for a larger percentage of the population from around the city to get to the game that more people will show up. Weird that isn't it!

BTW, I can see the argument for Penrith, and to a lesser extent Manly (though their situation is more complex then that), staying put because of their circumstances, and Cronulla own their pitch so they can do what they like, but there's no excuses for everybody else.

12 hours ago, aj1908 said:

i think you need to chill with your sydney phobia lol.

I think that you don't know what phobia means, and that you live in the middle of a massive circle jerk for the Sydney clubs so you don't realise how much damage is done to the Nation Rugby League's image nationally because of how Sydney centric the competition.

12 hours ago, aj1908 said:

brisbane has always wanted a grand final, ever since super league.  this kind of gives them one.

No it wouldn't kind of give them a GF, it'd give them the equivalent a preliminary final.

[The Great Dane]

12 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

@The Great Dane, whilst a two conference system will assure either a Sydney or NSW team to appear in the GF (depending on the size of the comp), it will also assure a spot for a non Sydney/NSW & ACT club. Essentially every club has a one in 8 chance of making a GF rather than a 1 in 16 or even greater in an expanded comp. 

Firstly, your equation is off. It wouldn't be a one in 8 chance in his system because it'd be a 22 team competition. I imagine that the Sydney conference would have 10 teams (9 Sydney clubs plus Newcastle to make an even 10) and that the national conference would have the other 12 teams.

Secondly, the odds of making the GF doesn't matter, it's the image of making it impossible for there not be a Sydney club in the GF that matters!

Already if you wander beyond the borders of Sydney and the surrounding regions of NSW people laugh at you when you say National Rugby League. The perception is that it's basically a Sydney competition with some other clubs clumsily tacked on and it's not a legitimate national competition, and frankly it's hard to argue against that point of view when the smallest of minor sports such as Ice Hockey and Baseball can support national competitions yet the big bad NRL can't.

That perception of the competition is severely stunting it's growth, because if you think that the competition is more or less a joke, then you are going to treat it as such. 

Make it so it's not only impossible for a Sydney club not to make it into the GF, but for it to be impossible for their to be a GF contested between two of the other major capitals (i.e. Brisbane and Melbourne for example) and you'll be massively reinforcing the perception of the NRL as a Sydney competition that clubs from other cities have been tacked onto, and you'll murder the NRL's legitimacy in the process, nobody outside of Sydney will take it seriously anymore and that'll be it, it'll slowly fade into nothingness.

12 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

In my opinion, that’s another great opportunity for the sport to deliver greater rivalries.

So by more or less cutting a bunch of teams off from their rivals (e.g. Melbourne and Manly), and cutting a bunch of other teams off from their highest drawing fixtures, you are going to deliver greater rivalries. . . Okay, good luck with that.

12 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Sydney clubs are vital to the growth of the sport in Sydney and NSW. Expanding the comp and keeping the existing Sydney clubs does not have to be exclusive of each other.

The Sydney clubs are the biggest thing stunting the growth of the sport, and have been for 40 years now!

The NRL simply doesn't have the resources to support 9 Sydney clubs and grow the competition to it's full potential, and that has always been the case.

If you want the NRL to grow as big as it could be, and meet it's full potential then the NRL needs to shed roughly half the clubs in Sydney, otherwise it'll be stunted by having their weight around it's neck forever more.

[Copa]

13 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Essentially every club has a one in 8 chance of making a GF rather than a 1 in 16 or even greater in an expanded comp. 

1 in 8 teams already make the grand final.

[aj1908]

2 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

1. No V'landys is making noises about spending more money on suburban grounds and then asserting that the state government is interested.

Any money that he does actually get will only be enough to make token changes at best, and not enough to fix any of the major issues that the suburban grounds have, which is exactly what is happening at Brookvale. It's lipstick on a pig stuff.

2. Upgrading the Suburban grounds wouldn't be for the 3 rectangular codes, it'd only be for league, so you don't even have that argument in your favour.

People have said that about every club that has moved to the central stadiums, and yet every club that has moved have higher average attendance at the central stadiums then they have at their "spiritual home". . . It's almost as if you play in a central part of the city and it's easier for a larger percentage of the population from around the city to get to the game that more people will show up. Weird that isn't it!

BTW, I can see the argument for Penrith, and to a lesser extent Manly (though their situation is more complex then that), staying put because of their circumstances, and Cronulla own their pitch so they can do what they like, but there's no excuses for everybody else.

I think that you don't know what phobia means, and that you live in the middle of a massive circle jerk for the Sydney clubs so you don't realise how much damage is done to the Nation Rugby League's image nationally because of how Sydney centric the competition.

No it wouldn't kind of give them a GF, it'd give them the equivalent a preliminary final.

1. Still, V’landys has been deep in discussions with members of government to ensure the upgrade of grounds like Leichhardt Oval, Brookvale and Campbelltown Stadium.

“There’s been no resistance from government,” V’landys.

“There are buckets of money"

2. i was talking about the upgrade of bankwest, sfs and homebush

 

 

[aj1908]

2 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Firstly, your equation is off. It wouldn't be a one in 8 chance in his system because it'd be a 22 team competition. I imagine that the Sydney conference would have 10 teams (9 Sydney clubs plus Newcastle to make an even 10) and that the national conference would have the other 12 teams.

Secondly, the odds of making the GF doesn't matter, it's the image of making it impossible for there not be a Sydney club in the GF that matters!

Already if you wander beyond the borders of Sydney and the surrounding regions of NSW people laugh at you when you say National Rugby League. The perception is that it's basically a Sydney competition with some other clubs clumsily tacked on and it's not a legitimate national competition, and frankly it's hard to argue against that point of view when the smallest of minor sports such as Ice Hockey and Baseball can support national competitions yet the big bad NRL can't.

That perception of the competition is severely stunting it's growth, because if you think that the competition is more or less a joke, then you are going to treat it as such. 

Make it so it's not only impossible for a Sydney club not to make it into the GF, but for it to be impossible for their to be a GF contested between two of the other major capitals (i.e. Brisbane and Melbourne for example) and you'll be massively reinforcing the perception of the NRL as a Sydney competition that clubs from other cities have been tacked onto, and you'll murder the NRL's legitimacy in the process, nobody outside of Sydney will take it seriously anymore and that'll be it, it'll slowly fade into nothingness.

So by more or less cutting a bunch of teams off from their rivals (e.g. Melbourne and Manly), and cutting a bunch of other teams off from their highest drawing fixtures, you are going to deliver greater rivalries. . . Okay, good luck with that.

The Sydney clubs are the biggest thing stunting the growth of the sport, and have been for 40 years now!

The NRL simply doesn't have the resources to support 9 Sydney clubs and grow the competition to it's full potential, and that has always been the case.

If you want the NRL to grow as big as it could be, and meet it's full potential then the NRL needs to shed roughly half the clubs in Sydney, otherwise it'll be stunted by having their weight around it's neck forever more.

AFL has eight teams that only play in melbourne.

NRL has eight teams that only play in sydney

you know they tried a competition without mostly sydney clubs, how did that go.

your views are dated, get with the times.  everybody is over the super league war.

4 teams in sydney lol

yeh they could name one north, one south, one east and one west.

[aj1908]

last year canberra had one of their best years in 20 years.  their crowd average was surpassed by 5 sydney clubs, some who had awful seasons.

maybe we should kick out canberra as its a small country town, and channel nine never want to show their games, its worth nothing to broadcasters.

i mean in the league with big city teams, what can a small country town add ?  lol

[aj1908]

1 hour ago, Copa said:

1 in 8 teams already make the grand final.

1 in 16 teams get the six again against them in the grand final lol

https://imgflip.com/i/3cjodc

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, Copa said:

1 in 8 teams already make the grand final.

Yes @Copa, but then shall I put it this way... you would only have to better 7 teams instead of 14 in order to make the GF.

Makes sense now?

[Sports Prophet]

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Firstly, your equation is off. It wouldn't be a one in 8 chance in his system because it'd be a 22 team competition. I imagine that the Sydney conference would have 10 teams (9 Sydney clubs plus Newcastle to make an even 10) and that the national conference would have the other 12 teams.

Whatever the number of teams in the comp, it doesn’t matter... with a conference set up, there are only half the number of teams that any club is required to better, in order to make the grand final. That is a very simple equation that brings every fan that little bit closer to a GF berth before a ball has even been kicked to start a season.

(I simply concluded that Canberra were included in the NSW conference, to even up the numbers of teams, wasn’t that difficult and is a good fit)

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

Already if you wander beyond the borders of Sydney and the surrounding regions of NSW people laugh at you when you say National Rugby League. The perception is that it's basically a Sydney competition with some other clubs clumsily tacked on and it's not a legitimate national competition, and frankly it's hard to argue against that point of view when the smallest of minor sports such as Ice Hockey and Baseball can support national competitions yet the big bad NRL can't.

I can argue that point. Depends on your interpretation of the word “National”. Is the NRL the peak RL competition in the nation? Yes it is. Do the top RL clubs of the nation all compete in the national competition? Yes they do.

In saying that, I do recognise your point, but, I can argue that it all day long.

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

So by more or less cutting a bunch of teams off from their rivals (e.g. Melbourne and Manly), and cutting a bunch of other teams off from their highest drawing fixtures, you are going to deliver greater rivalries. . . Okay, good luck with that.

 

Interstate teams still get their opportunity to play each other at a minimum of once per season in the proposed 2 conference system, so don’t be disingenuous by suggesting that they will not. Apart from Melbourne v Manly or Cronulla, there probably isn’t any great interstate rivalry with a “highest drawing fixture” anyway.

3 hours ago, The Great Dane said:

The Sydney clubs are the biggest thing stunting the growth of the sport, and have been for 40 years now!

The NRL simply doesn't have the resources to support 9 Sydney clubs and grow the competition to it's full potential, and that has always been the case.

If you want the NRL to grow as big as it could be, and meet it's full potential then the NRL needs to shed roughly half the clubs in Sydney, otherwise it'll be stunted by having their weight around it's neck forever more.

 I understand we will never see eye to eye on this point so it is futile to argue, but for the benefit of anybody else, I could say the Sydney clubs combined are the biggest asset to the sport in Australia.

When you talk of ice hockey and baseball having the resources to support competitions with a greater national footprint, then I don’t think the resources for the NRL, or lack there of, is a fair assumption.

Why on earth does the NRL need to cut clubs with tens of thousands of supporters, when they can just keep them and add new teams anyway. It’s a daft argument that you need to cut “half the clubs in Sydney” in order to add the number of teams.

Clubs are no longer dependent on the NRL for survival, as has clearly been stated by Greenberg on numerous occasions. They are required to live within their own means and if they fail financially, then there is no bail out. The Sydney clubs (nor others like GC and Newcastle) are not a weight around the neck of the NRL in any fashion.

[aj1908]

7 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Whatever the number of teams in the comp, it doesn’t matter... with a conference set up, there are only half the number of teams that any club is required to better, in order to make the grand final. That is a very simple equation that brings every fan that little bit closer to a GF berth before a ball has even been kicked to start a season.

(I simply concluded that Canberra were included in the NSW conference, to even up the numbers of teams, wasn’t that difficult and is a good fit)

I can argue that point. Depends on your interpretation of the word “National”. Is the NRL the peak RL competition in the nation? Yes it is. Do the top RL clubs of the nation all compete in the national competition? Yes they do.

In saying that, I do recognise your point, but, I can argue that it all day long.

Interstate teams still get their opportunity to play each other at a minimum of once per season in the proposed 2 conference system, so don’t be disingenuous by suggesting that they will not. Apart from Melbourne v Manly or Cronulla, there probably isn’t any great interstate rivalry with a “highest drawing fixture” anyway.

 I understand we will never see eye to eye on this point so it is futile to argue, but for the benefit of anybody else, I could say the Sydney clubs combined are the biggest asset to the sport in Australia.

When you talk of ice hockey and baseball having the resources to support competitions with a greater national footprint, then I don’t think the resources for the NRL, or lack there of, is a fair assumption.

Why on earth does the NRL need to cut clubs with tens of thousands of supporters, when they can just keep them and add new teams anyway. It’s a daft argument that you need to cut “half the clubs in Sydney” in order to add the number of teams.

Clubs are no longer dependent on the NRL for survival, as has clearly been stated by Greenberg on numerous occasions. They are required to live within their own means and if they fail financially, then there is no bail out. The Sydney clubs (nor others like GC and Newcastle) are not a weight around the neck of the NRL in any fashion.

Buddy what a post.  Bang on

[RayCee]

On 17/12/2019 at 14:19, TIWIT said:

No, no, a thousand times no!

It was a tongue in cheek comment. I hate timeouts.